Meanwhile, in Germany…the OMT ruling of the German Constitutional Court

BVerfGProf Peter Lindseth

This post originally appeared in virtually the same form on the europaeus blog.  Reproduced with kind permission.

With the EU referendum taking place today, it will be easy to overlook the OMT judgment from the German Federal Constitutional Court two days ago (English press release here, full German judgment here).  The conventional wisdom is that the decision is the usual “yes, but…” effort.  There’s some element of truth in that, but it also misses some important dimensions of ruling that will no doubt occupy commentators on Germany’s legal relationship with the EU for some time.  I’m still absorbing the judgment and also awaiting an English translation.  But in the interim, I thought I’d pass on my tweets from yesterday that tried to identify several key paragraphs worthy of deeper analysis. Continue reading

Countdown to the Referendum: Remaining and reforming the EU by Rhodri Thompson QC

‘Countdown to the Referendum’ is a series of free downloadable articles by Matrix that will explore a number of legal topics surrounding the UK referendum on 23 June 2016. In this series the articles have covered a number of topics which are all available here. Authors include Nick Armstrong, Claire Darwin, Sir Paul Jenkins QC (Hon), Gavin Millar QC, Aidan O’Neill QC, Nick Randall QC, Mark Summers QC, Rhodri Thompson QC, Professor Takis Tridimas and Angeline Welsh.

In our final article in this series before the vote tomorrow, Rhodri Thompson QC provides his final thoughts on how this referendum campaign has developed and the future for reform of the EU if we remain. He gives a summary of ten good reasons to stay, and five bad reasons to leave the EU. To download this article, please see here.

We hope you have enjoyed this series. If you would like to get in touch with your feedback, please email rsvp@matrixlaw.co.uk.

Countdown to the Referendum: Brexit and the WTO Agreement by Dr Erik Lagerlof

‘Countdown to the Referendum’ is a series of free downloadable articles by Matrix that will explore a number of legal topics surrounding the UK referendum on 23 June 2016. In this series the articles have covered a number of topics which are all available here. Authors include Nick Armstrong, Claire Darwin, Sir Paul Jenkins QC (Hon), Gavin Millar QC, Aidan O’Neill QC, Nick Randall QC, Mark Summers QC, Rhodri Thompson QC, Professor Takis Tridimas and Angeline Welsh.

In a guest post for the Matrix referendum series, Dr Erik Lagerlof asks whether the UK would be able to rely on the WTO agreement if it were to leave the EU. He argues that the UK as a joint contracting party alongside the EU and the other Member States will not continue to benefit from the WTO agreement if it decides to leave the EU. To download this article, please see here.

Dr Erik Lagerlof is a senior associate at the Swedish law firm Vinge.

We hope you enjoy this series. If you would like to get in touch with your feedback or to add someone to the mailing list, please email rsvp@matrixlaw.co.uk.

Countdown to the Referendum: Brexit and Premier League Transfers by Nicholas Randall QC

‘Countdown to the Referendum’ is a series of free downloadable articles by Matrix that will explore a number of legal topics surrounding the UK referendum on 23 June 2016. In this series the articles have covered a number of topics which are all available here. Authors include Nick Armstrong, Claire Darwin,Sir Paul Jenkins QC (Hon), Gavin Millar QC, Aidan O’Neill QC, Nick Randall QC, Mark Summers QC,Rhodri Thompson QC, Professor Takis Tridimas and Angeline Welsh.

This week, Nick Randall QC considers the consequences of a Brexit vote on the ability of Premier League clubs to sign overseas talent. To download this article, please see here. 

We hope you enjoy this series. If you would like to get in touch with your feedback or to add someone to the mailing list, please email rsvp@matrixlaw.co.uk.

Countdown to the Referendum:The Impact of Brexit on UK Security by Mark Summers QC and Angeline Welsh

‘Countdown to the Referendum’ is a series of free downloadable articles by Matrix that will explore a number of legal topics surrounding the UK referendum on 23 June 2016. In this series articles have covered a number of topics which are all available here. Authors include Nick Armstrong, Claire Darwin,Sir Paul Jenkins QC (Hon), Gavin Millar QC, Aidan O’Neill QC, Nick Randall QC, Mark Summers QC,Rhodri Thompson QC, Professor Takis Tridimas and Angeline Welsh.

This week, Mark Summers QC and Angeline Welsh discuss what a British exit from the EU would mean for the internal and external security of the UK. Their analysis considers the effectiveness of EU defence policy and intelligence-sharing arrangements, and highlights the problems for continued police and criminal co-operation that would flow from leaving the EU. This article is available to download here.

We hope you enjoy this series. If you would like to get in touch with your feedback or to add someone to the mailing list, please email rsvp@matrixlaw.co.uk.

Countdown to the Referendum: Scotland and Brexit by Aidan O’Neill QC (Scot)

‘Countdown to the Referendum’ is a series of free downloadable articles by Matrix that will explore a number of legal topics surrounding the UK referendum on 23 June 2016. In this series articles have covered a number of topics which are all available here. Authors include Nick Armstrong, Claire Darwin,Sir Paul Jenkins QC (Hon), Gavin Millar QC, Aidan O’Neill QC, Nick Randall QC, Mark Summers QC,Rhodri Thompson QC, Professor Takis Tridimas and Angeline Welsh.

This week, Aidan O’Neill QC (Scot) considers the wisdom and effectiveness of referendums being used to decide on complex constitutional questions. He considers the impact on the UK, and in particular on Scotland’s relationship with England and vice versa, if Scotland votes to remain in the EU, but England decides to leave. This article can be downloaded here.

We hope you enjoy this series. If you would like to get in touch with your feedback or to add someone to the mailing list, please email rsvp@matrixlaw.co.uk.

The UK Referendum is a bad idea; voting to leave would make it worse

Erik Jones is Professor of European Studies and International Political Economy and Director of European and Eurasian Studies at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS, www.sais-jhu.edu), and Senior Research Fellow at Nuffield College, Oxford.

This is an edited version of an article originally published on his personal website (www.erikjones.net), and is republished here with kind permission.

Synopsis

  • Argues that the Vote Leave campaign’s arguments based around boosting British “sovereignty” are seriously mistaken, and that the use of referendums actually usurps parliamentary sovereignty (in that it will effectively bind future parliaments).
  • Claims that the EU does not constrain British sovereignty, rather that British institutions exercise sovereignty to work within European constraints.
  • Suggests four ways in which EU cooperation has made UK Government action more effective: (1) the UK Government has considerable input into the shape and application of EU law, purported alternatives suggested by Leave campaigners to “EU laws” often just reflect domestic political disagreement and attempts to unpick Government decisions; (2) most market regulations are the result of competition/adoption of best practice across jurisdictions, including the EU – this wouldn’t change following Brexit, simply government action to promote British interests would likely be less effective; (3) any good British regulatory innovation is likely to be expensive for British companies unless the Government can find some way to win allies for its wider adoption; and (4) the best situation from a regulatory perspective is to have a large market for innovation and competition in regulation – policy-makers want the best regulations given current practice and they want to adapt to the best regulations that emerge in the future.

Two bad ideas

The EU referendum on 23 June is based on (at least) two bad ideas. The first is that the popular legitimacy of a referendum can restore the sovereignty of Parliament. The Vote Leave campaign believes they can take power from Brussels and give it back to Westminster. That is a fantasy. Parliament will be more constrained and less effective if the UK leaves. The second bad idea is that referendums are more democratic than Acts of Parliament (which is the kind of decision that brought the UK this far in its relationship with Europe). By giving the people the chance to speak their mind on a yes-or-no (in-or-out, remain-or-leave) question, we can discover what they really want. That is not how people work. Real people prefer trial and error. Real people also like to delegate responsibility for making complicated decisions. This matters because the two bad ideas combine to make the worst of all possible worlds. If the UK votes to “Leave”, voters will discover that they have made a terrible mistake only to learn that there is no easy way to fix it.

Referendums usurp parliamentary sovereignty

Let’s start from first principles: popular referendums do not protect parliamentary sovereignty; they usurp it. When David Cameron announced his intention to hold an in-or-out referendum, he made it clear that the goal was for the British people to have their say and finish the debate. What that means in principle is that future parliaments should not revisit the matter. The people will have spoken and so Parliament’s hands are tied. The fact that the people elect MPs does not trump the voice of the people themselves. The fact that many of ‘the people’ will soon pass onto the next life and so leave this constraint on future generations who haven’t yet learned to talk doesn’t matter either. As if to underscore this point, David Cameron tried to win concessions from Europe that would be similarly permanent. Britain’s opt-out from the European goal of an “ever closer union” is “irrevocable”, for example. Future parliaments should not revisit that issue either. This whole debate has made the scope for parliamentary action narrower and not wider. Current politicians have tricked the people into usurping the sovereignty of Westminster.

The situation is not worse under Europe. It is better. Nothing that has been agreed about Europe by past UK parliaments is irrevocably binding – or meant to be so. The same is true for every other country participating in the European project. If you needed any reassurance on that point, just look at how much attention the current referendum is getting elsewhere. Other European leaders know that the British government can take the UK out of the EU. So does the United States government, as President Barack Obama made clear during his recent visit. None of these political leaders thinks it would be a good idea for Great Britain to leave Europe, but they all respect that it is within the power of the UK Government to do so. The same is not true for an American state. Those states exercise sovereignty – and some, like Texas, flirt at times with secessionist rhetoric – but they are not sovereign in the same way that the UK is as an EU ‘member’ state.

The notion of ‘membership’ is important in that respect. Short of expulsion, membership is largely a self-enforcing activity. When the British legal system enforces European rules, they do so on the basis of British legal commitments made by Westminster and not as the agents of some higher power. There is no European enforcement mechanism that can override British institutions. And if British institutions choose to ignore European legal requirements there is little that the European Union can do about it. The EU could threaten to expel Britain in order to bend the UK Government to its will, but only the Government can decide whether and how to respond to that threat. If the recent example of Poland is any illustration, then expulsion – from the room and not even from the Union – is unlikely to happen.

My point is not that national governments can and should ignore their European commitments. Rather it is that commitment to Europe is an act of self-interest rather than the result of some kind of enforcement. In that sense, the threat of expulsion is not only unlikely but also unnecessary (although some observers of democratic backsliding in some of the newer Member States are likely to disagree with me on this point). Most governments accept the judgments of the European institutions. They may not like the specific decision, but they respect that some institution has to render judgment when there is disagreement over whether there are rules in a given situation, what the rules mean, and how they should be implemented. David Cameron conceded this point explicitly in his Bloomberg speech. The European Union does not constrain British sovereignty; British institutions exercise sovereignty to work within European constraints.

EU cooperation makes UK government action more effective

This self-restraint is rational insofar as participation in European institutions makes parliamentary activity more effective. No doubt many MPs will argue that is not the case. They will also complain that some enormous percentage of British laws are drafted in Brussels and not at Westminster. And they will highlight one or two key areas where they would do things differently if freed from European constraints. There is a complicated subterfuge in this line of argument that needs to be unpacked to be considered. Let me do that in four steps.

First, the real effect of the Leave campaign would be to overturn past parliamentary decisions. Successive British parliaments have delegated rule-making authority to European institutions in which they have also demanded representation. Successive British parliaments have also participated in a series of sweeping reforms to the procedures for how those European institutions make rules. And successive British parliaments have converted European rules into national legislation. At each step along the way, opponents of Europe have had the opportunity to protest both inside and outside the Houses of Parliament. Sometimes those opponents of Europe have won concessions and sometimes they have blocked change. Participation in the euro and the Schengen area are two examples. Sometimes, however, those opponents of Europe have either failed to influence the conversation or they have had little real reason to complain. Here we might put much of the single European market. So the difference between the world we live in today and a world without Europe boils down to those policy areas where opponents of Europe wanted to do something different and yet failed to sway a majority of Parliament. Now they want to reverse those defeats.

Second, many of those decisions would have come out similarly – at least in broad terms – even without European integration. Remember, both the Schengen Area and the euro are off the table. So the focus is on the Single Market. All markets have regulations and most market regulations are the result of competition across jurisdictions. Moreover, the UK Government is involved in a large number of international organisations that share ‘best practice’ for how markets should be regulated, how different regulations interact, and how much it costs to do business across different regulatory jurisdictions. This is the information that policymakers use to ‘modernise’ the rules that define the domestic marketplace. As the world becomes increasingly interconnected through market activity, that modernisation involves increasing amounts of information gathered from the experience of other countries and filtered through international forums like the European Union. The Leave campaign is quick to admit that practice will not change if the UK were to leave the EU. That is much the same as admitting that a lot of the actions of the British parliament would start outside of London even if the EU did not exist. The question is whether those actions would have been as effective in representing the British national interest.

Third, smaller markets have to accept the rules set by larger markets if they do not want to put their firms at a competitive disadvantage. Here you might think of weights and measures. There was a time when every market town had a town hall that provided examples of the standard weights and measures that applied for lawful transactions. That kind of local idiosyncrasy was one of the first victims of market integration. Every market town also had its own ‘time’ that pivoted around the sun’s apex at noon. That kind of idiosyncrasy has disappeared as well. Of course there are some holdouts. The United States still uses a form of imperial weights and measures and North Korea recently introduced its own time zone, setting the country’s clocks back by thirty minutes. Most of the rest of the world makes do with the metric system and time zones set at hourly increments and centred on Greenwich. If you dig into the details, moreover, you will see that a lot of market regulations and voluntary industrial standards show the same pattern of convergence. Moreover, the pattern is set by the largest markets and not necessarily the cleverest regulators or standard setters (unless some clever innovation is quickly adapted by a large market). This means that any good British regulatory innovation is likely to be expensive for British firms unless the British Government can find some way to win allies for its wider adoption. It also means that a lot of British regulation is going to be determined by the relative costs of doing business.

Fourth, the best situation from a regulatory perspective is to have a large market for innovation and competition and to use that large market to build a coherent regulatory framework to achieve two complementary objectives: policymakers want to adopt the best regulations given current practice and they want to adapt to the best regulations that emerge in the future. That challenge is bet met through international cooperation because almost no regulatory jurisdiction is big enough, innovative enough, and flexible enough to do everything on its own. Moreover, this is as true for the United States as it is for the European Union. That is why governments on both sides of the Atlantic pushed for a transatlantic trade and investment partnership. They knew that this kind of regulatory cooperation would be more challenging than a standard trade agreement. The current controversy over the agreement is less of a surprise than many pretend. But policymakers also saw that some kind of transatlantic trade and investment partnership is the only way to get what you want from market regulations in an increasingly integration global economy. The Leave campaign wants to move in exactly the opposition direction. That result will be to force the British parliament into accepting rules made elsewhere without any input from the UK or to abandon the goal of national competitiveness.

The decision we face

If you add this all together, the Leave campaign will constrain the sovereignty of Westminster, it will overturn regulatory decisions that Eurosceptics already fought in Parliament and lost, it will rob Parliament of influence, and it will threaten the competitiveness of British firms. By contrast, the Remain campaign will promote British interests by placing trust in elected representatives to work with Britain’s closest allies in order to project shared values across a global market. That is the choice Britons face and yet it is not a choice they should have to make.

Instead, they should vote to remain in the EU and to give responsibility for European policy to MPs and government. Then they should vote – not just once, but every five years – to hold those politicians to account for their actions. In other words, by choosing to remain, the British people should make a clear choice for representative democracy. This way Britons can not only preserve parliamentary sovereignty but they can also make sure that Parliament remains responsive to the needs of future generations. Most importantly, they can ensure that the British people can benefit from the best market regulations that the world has to offer (rather than forcing their politicians to invent everything on their own).

The choice is simple. Leave means anachronism, idiosyncrasy, and ineffectiveness; remain means accountability, sovereignty, and progress. Once you strip out all the bad ideas at the heart of the Leave campaign, it hardly looks like a choice at all.

A tale of two exits: Scotland and Brexit

This article appears as part of Matrix’s Countdown to the Referendum series. The series is available here.

Straight answers to straight questions: lessons from Scotland

1. In December 2014 I wrote a blog post entitled A tale of two referendums. The piece was written in the light of the September 2014 Scottish independence referendum and the year-long campaign which had preceded it. That experience had left me very sceptical about the wisdom and utility of referendums as a means of illuminating and resolving constitutional questions. I wrote:

“ . . . referendums are no way to conduct politics in any mature multi-party Parliamentary democracy. They do not, after all, give straight answers to straight questions. Their very calling may be the result of political manipulation, and their results remain subject to radical political re-interpretation. They necessarily misrepresent difficult and complex political issues by reducing matters down to but one question, which can only be answered yes or no. They require certainty and finality in the face of the uncertain and the unknown. They do not allow for a multiplicity of voices or viewpoints. They leave no space for compromise. Information and properly informed discussion is lost in their barrage of unverifiable claims and unfalsifiable counter claims as to what the future holds from each opposing side in any referendum battle.”

2. I predicted that, as with the Scottish independence referendum:

“ . . . similarly competing and irreconcilable claims will be made by the opposing sides in the campaign around the anticipated referendum on the United Kingdom’s continuing membership of the European Union, following the coming general election. Those wishing the UK to break from the EU will doubtless extol the mythic virtues and heroic vigour of Albion unbound. Those advocating the UK’s continued membership of the EU – like those who campaigned for Scotland’s to stay in the (British) Union – will find it difficult to articulate a positive vision of Europe which will resonate with (particularly English) voters and will, instead, fall back on emphasising the economic dangers and market uncertainties which will come with our ‘turning our back on Europe” and falling prey to those vices (at least, etymologically) associated with island life: isolationism and insularity.”

3. Nobody likes a smart-arse, of course. And the cry “I told you so” is perhaps up there with “We’re doomed” as the two phrases most associated by so many south of the Border with the stereotypical picture of the gloomy self-righteous Caledonian. So I will refrain from their use now.

Asymmetric devolution: the invisible nation

4. Our island nation has become enveloped in a complexity of enriching political, economic, legal, ethical and cultural ties with our fellow European nations and peoples since the end of the Second World War. This great European peace has been fostered under the auspices of the European Union and the Council of Europe. The idea that that web of connexions should be rent asunder on the basis of sub-Trump sloganeering of “taking back control of immigration” to “make Britain Great again” is frankly depressing. Little Britain: big Europe.

5. The unacknowledged (or, perhaps, unrealized) problem, is that the reason the UK’s continued membership of the EU – or indeed its membership of the Council of Europe – has, after years of fringe grumbling, now assumed central stage (at least within the Tory party) is because of our asymmetric devolution. The anxiety that is really being expressed here is about the status of England – unrepresented in either the British union or the European Union. The invisible nation.

6. Owing to devolution within the UK and the new understanding it brings, I think we are beginning to appreciate that the United Kingdom is not a “nation state” but a “state of nations”. What has not been taken into account in that, is England. Everyone else seems able to define who they are by not being English. The problem is that the elements of the English are now defining themselves by not being European. That is a retrograde step. It is against that background of that anxiety that I understand the calls for a “British Bill of Rights”. It is instead an English Bill of Rights that it being sought, so that Magna Carta can take its place once more as the real fount of England’s imagined liberties, rather than the foreign “unEnglish” imposition that is the European Convention on Human Rights. I don’t have a problem with a new English Bill of Rights, as an assertion or recognition of England within the union, as long as the UK remains signed up to the ECHR because it keeps the (British and European) Unions together; it provide a uniform level of protection across the four nations of the British union, and keeps us integrated in that broader, post-Nuremburg European project that is the European Union.

7. The unexpected victory of the Tory party in the last general election could also be seen to be another expression of this anxiety about England and Englishness. The Conservative party election campaign expressly played into fears that the UK would be governed by Scottish Nationalists, propping up a minority Labour Government but at the price of holding the England to ransom for yet more powers, more money, more special treatment for Scotland within the union. Voting in a Conservative majority in May 2015 avoided that fate, but still left the problem of England unresolved. English votes for English laws is not enough. Instead, there is a semi- or sub-conscious desire for somewhere and somehow to express a respectable – i.e. not racist or semi-fascist – English nationalism. People want to show they are not ashamed of being English, that Englishness is not captured in images of drunken football fans rioting abroad. I fear, therefore, that what this EU referendum has become is a form of displacement activity, a chance for the English voters to affirm their Englishness. That is, perhaps, one way of explaining why the opinion polls show such a difference in voting intentions between Scotland and England on the issue of Brexit. Scottish voters seem to be comfortable with remaining in the EU – perhaps because Scotland remains a country which is more characterized by the emigration of its native-born, often taking the high road that leads to England (the “noblest prospect for a Scotchman” as Dr. (Samuel) Johnson had it) rather than by large scale influxes of other European free movers seeking work north of the border.

And for Scotland?

8. Thus we have the phenomenon of Scotland’s current First Minister, the SNP’s Nicola Sturgeon MSP, wholeheartedly campaigning for a Remain vote. While Scotland’s immediately past First Minister, the SNP’s Alex Salmond MP, asserts that a vote by an English majority for the UK to leave the EU against a Scottish vote for the UK to remain in the EU will constitute a mandate for another Scottish independence referendum to be held. This time, if the rest of the UK were allowed to vote in it, I suspect that we would find that the English would vote “yes” for Scottish independence, regardless of what the Scots want (a situation similar to break up of Czechoslovakia when ultimately the Czech Government insisted on Slovak independence rather than allow for the still further devolution sought by Slovakia).

9. So I think Sir John Major is right: a vote in favour of Brexit will ultimately mean that England leaves not just the European Union but repudiates the British union.

10. In the event of England voting for Brexit and Scotland voting to stay in the EU, the question is whether the other EU Member States would accept Scotland (perhaps even in an enforced confederation with Northern Ireland, assuming a majority of its divided populace expressing a wish to remain within the EU) as a new or continuing EU Member State. The idea of Scotland (and Northern Ireland) being recognized for purposes of EU membership negotiation as the continuing UK (England and Wales having, on this analysis chosen to secede – as Greenland did from Denmark – to form a new entity outside the EU) is that the scenario involving (a significant) part of a Member State leaving the EU would not establish any precedent for regions seeking to secede from existing continuing Member States (for example, Catalonia and Spain) to have any right or expectation of entitlement to their own independent EU membership.

11. From a broader geo-political perspective one could see that Germany, for example, might well see some benefits in a divide and rule policy and encourage the breakup of the United Kingdom by offering a sweetheart deal for Scotland and Northern Ireland to remain in. It would mean that England and Wales would remain physically and psychologically encircled by the territory of the EU rather than open to the Atlantic. North Sea and Irish Sea oil and gas would remain assets within the EU and their benefits more readily exploited for common EU use given that an independent Scotland will have a much lower bargaining power in the EU than it had as part of the United Kingdom.

12. Doubtless the SNP would seek to ensure that independence was a “safe option”, with Scotland’s independence from the rest of the UK to come about only if Scotland’s continuing place within the European Union had been suitably secured and all the uncertainties (whether about keeping the pound or joining the Euro or joining the Schengen area or staying as part of any continuing British and Irish common travel area) had been resolved. On this scenario of Scotland’s independence from the British union being simultaneous with Scotland’s accession to independent membership of the European Union (and the rest of the UK’s withdrawal from Europe) the holding of the new status of Scottish citizenship would bring with it the benefits of being an EU citizen. For example, the siting of corporate headquarters in Edinburgh rather than London would be presented as allowing companies full access to the single European market which might be denied to those who choose to remain based now outside the EU in the rest of the UK.

13. The question for the SNP however is: would a post-Brexit/little Englander UK Prime Minister, such as Boris Johnson (no relation?), be willing to allow for such a “velvet divorce”? This scenario need never be faced up to if we all (or just a majority of us) vote to stay in, and therefore keep Britain in Europe. But, whatever the result, the question of how England is to be recognised and protected within Britain has to be properly and coherently addressed and answered.

12 June 2016
AIDAN O’NEILL

Countdown to the Referendum: Immigration and Brexit

‘Countdown to the Referendum’ is a series of free downloadable articles by Matrix that will explore a number of legal topics surrounding the UK referendum on 23 June 2016. Over the coming weeks, our experts at Matrix will cover the legal enforceability of the recent EU settlement, election law issues and the referendum process, claims of EU “over-regulation”, how Brexit will impact Scotland, and immigration and security issues. Authors include Nick Armstrong, Claire Darwin, Sir Paul Jenkins QC (Hon), Gavin Millar QC, Aidan O’Neill QC, Nick Randall QC, Mark Summers QC, Rhodri Thompson QC and Angeline Welsh.

This week, Nick Armstrong looks at the implications of a British exit from the EU on arguably the biggest issue in the referendum debate: immigration and the free movement of persons to the UK. He considers the likelihood of Brexit making a difference to migrant numbers and what may happen after the vote.

If you would like to get in touch with your feedback or to add someone to the mailing list, please email rsvp@matrixlaw.co.uk.

You can download the article here: Nick Armstrong – Brexit and Immigration

Countdown to the Referendum: The Post-23 June Process

‘Countdown to the Referendum’ is a series of free downloadable articles by Matrix that will explore a number of legal topics surrounding the UK referendum on 23 June 2016. Over the coming weeks, our experts at Matrix will cover the legal enforceability of the recent EU settlement, election law issues and the referendum process, claims of EU “over-regulation”, how Brexit will impact Scotland, and immigration and security issues. Authors will include Nick Armstrong, Claire Darwin, Sir Paul Jenkins QC (Hon), Gavin Millar QC, Aidan O’Neill QC, Nick Randall QC, Mark Summers QC, Rhodri Thompson QC, Professor Takis Tridimas and Angeline Welsh.

This week, Sir Paul Jenkins KCB QC (Hon) looks at the aftermath of a decision on 23 June that the UK should leave the EU. He considers some of the immediate steps necessary if we were to leave, and examines article 50 of the Treaty on European Union in particular. You can download this week’s article here.

If you would like to get in touch with your feedback or to add someone to the mailing list, please email rsvp@matrixlaw.co.uk.

You can download the article here: Sir Paul Jenkins QC (Hon) – The Post-23 June Process